I just watched Capitalisam.A love story....Why the fuck don't you do something about it?

[cyberblade507]

2. Some have asserted that the rich prevent others from being rich.

If you can only point to one or two examples of self-made billionnaires, you've kind of debunked your own argument. Hard work and good ideas my arse. They got rich by lying, cheating, stealing and generally being ruthless bastards.

It's a mathematical constant that as long as there are rich people there will be poor people. If everyone woke up tomorrow with as much money as Bill Gates, inflation would see to it that by mid-afternoon, we'd all have as much money as an Indian telemarketer. It's a zero sum game.

Rephrasing your assertion: "pointing out only one well known result in your argument's favor immediately debunks your entire premise." That's not how logic works, buddy. Do you honestly think I will list every single good rich person in the world, or even just the US? That would take more research and time than is feasible for one person. Just because I only point out one or two examples doesn't mean they are the only ones I know. And please, if you're going to make such assertions based on a lack of citation, please cite your own counter arguments. It just makes you sound silly.

And don't talk down to me about simple economics or twist my words so maliciously. I wasn't saying everyone will or should suddenly become ultra-rich and the economy will still hold. I was saying that in a Capitalist society it is at least POSSIBLE. A lot of people in this country would be very rich if they weren't so bad with money, that's the problem. The sad fact of reality is that not every will become rich not because of some conspiracy, but because they don't see the right patterns, or aren't good at something marketable, or just aren't good at math (of course, some will have very unlucky lives outside of their control that prevent them from succeeding but they are by far in the minority). And if everyone was instantly equally rich, inflation settled in, and we were all "Indian telemarketers" in terms of money, isn't that exactly what we would have essentially with socialistic equality? If there are no rich and no poor, then everyone has the same amount of money, which isn't all that much. Is it better to have no chance for something better or to have a chance based on your own motivation and skills (barring unfortunate accidents or sickness)? Capitalism definitely provides the latter.

Also, do you realize that MOST rich people aren't famous? You hear about the corrupt, embezzling CEOs and whatnot, sure. But you also hear about murderous gamers. Guess what: not all of either of them do terrible things like that. There are rich doctors, rich scientists, rich artists. And if those rich people didn't charge for services they were good at, they would be overwhelmed with all the work people tried to get out of them. If you make a good product or provide a good service (and being a good CEO is a good service to provide) you have to raise the price so that the demand isn't too high for what you can supply. That is extremely basic economics. You have to pick and choose who gets your attention or let the market forces do it for you.

3. Part of the reason for the recent economic troubles...

Whatever it was that finally toppled the house of cards, whether it was a breeze or someone brushing past or sneezing, the house of cards was highly unstable to begin with, and its collapse was inevitable sooner or later. Free market stability is kind of like a perpetual energy generator; there's this little thing called entropy that means it'll always be a pipedream.

No person (or at least, no person I know) who actually knows about practical Capitalism believes in total stability. We know about Boom and Bust. There was a boom in the 1920s, then the Great Depression (for those wondering, no the market crash was more of a result/parallel happening than a direct cause for the Great Depression). There was a boom in the 1990s, then what we have now. We know these things happen. Big boom, big bust. Small boom, small bust. There isn't a perfect system. There never will be. Eventually it breaks down. Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, they all fail at some point in the long run. I've known about this for years and it makes me very confused why people were so panicked, and in some cases shocked, that the economy went bad.

4. Someone mentioned something along the lines of "money = political power today." This is nothing new and as long as someone influential wants something, there will be someone willing to give it to them, for a price.

Unless you get rid of the whole concept of price, and money.

My point here is that you can never get rid of the most basic concept. Someone will always say "I have x." Another will respond "If I give you y, can I have x?" This is basic bartering. In modern times, either x or y will almost certainly be money. But you can put in anything of value: food, clothes, shelter, favors, etc. If one person has a lot of extra food for some reason, they might give it away for a favor or clothes. Or building materials. Or a well made hammer. And if you are good at making clothes you may just make a bunch of them and trade them off for everything else they need. Bam, essentially Capitalism with no money. Price doesn't mean cold hard cash. It's what it "costs" to get something, or get you to give something.

 

[RamirezDoEverything]

Moore may be a complete asshole, but he does bring up excellent points in this.

The story of the last 20 or so years?

WE. GOT. FUCKED.

 

[Araxiel_1911]

Now one of the biggest argument I hear against him is that he is "bias".

Well if being "biased" is all it takes to make every word you say a lie, then hell, Extra Credit is can not be trusted. They care for games and are gamers. They're biased. That means they're lying about every single thing they're saying. Games probably make you violent and more stupid. Don't you see it, they're just using our emotions. And emotions are bad. I think people should be stripped of all sort of emotions. I think Metriod other M is the greatest game in the century and Half Life 2 is utter shit. Why do I think that? Because you said so. And you are biased because you prefer the kind of game that Half Life 2 is*. You are a lyring bastard and I don't want to listen to you because nothing good can come out of that conversation.
I also believe that any form of criticism is a direct attack on what is critised. If I say Half Life 2 has one or two flaws, such as "when you look down, you can't see your legs", I say that Half Life 2 is the worst game in the world and must be thrased and everything remotly connected with it. If I say that I don't like your Avatar much, then that means I directly attacked you and called you an asshole and everything you hold dear with it. If I say that there are flaws in the political system of the United States then I say that the U.S. is the worst shithole in the world and all it's people and that it has the worst political system in the world and absolutely everything must be changed.

You see what I did there?

*If you actually say that Metroid other M is the better game and you don't think Half Life 2 deserves the 97% it recieved in every review ever, then god help you.

 

[dlsevern]

Neither capitlism or socialism is better than the other, they both have their advantages and disadvantages.

 

[peruvianskys]

Im not disagreeing with you here - quite the contrary. The communistic economic system would end up with the average standard of living being much lower than it is at the moment, and its bad enough (or rather, rapidly getting worse) right now. But it does beg the question; what is the ideal system? Capitalism has failed time and time again, not only inevitably crashing and burning after a short amount of time, but also bringing a whole wealth of other problems with it too, all related to economics but most not revolving around them. Communism has failed (at least in my eyes) before it even got started because actually getting to the point where its a viable system that isnt corrupt is much much harder than sustaining the system for a considerable amount of time, once it is up and running in its purest form. Exactly the opposite of capitalism. So, where do you go? Do you turn in endless circles, with the economy collapsing in itself ever 40 to 50 years, with all systems failing regularly? I cant even begin to think of a good answer for that question, but I do hope someone does soon. I would be curious as to what you think, or if you have an answer. I might not end up agreeing with you but hey, thats the way it goes.

What's interesting is that between 1865 and 1929, we have almost six times as many recessions/bank failures than we did between 1945 and 2008 here in America; unchecked capitalism leads to those dangerous boom-busts, undeniably, but the recent 20th-century prevalence of international regulatory boards, the federal reserve, more stringent regulation, etc. has allowed for capitalism to avoid its biggest problem, mainly, that it rises and falls so easily; however, some degree of rising and falling is good for an economy, as it stimulates greater growth on the upswing and keep stagnation from occurring. That's one of communism's big problems, is that is essentially stays perfectly even until it crashes and burns, which is far worse than capitalism's inevitable hills and valleys, especially considering the "flat plane" of communism is usually below even the troughs of market fluctuation (even during the worst years of the Depression, Americans were in better shape than Russians in the USSR). So in short, the solution is regulation; not too much as to suffocate the freedom of the market, but enough to make sure that we don't have ten years of riches followed by twenty of poverty (an economic model which defined the 1800's in America). The details of what should and shouldn't be regulated are certainly complex and debatable and not for me to decide, but no one can deny that regulation is generally a necessary thing that is capable of fixing a lot of the issues caused by unfettered capitalism.

On the other hand, communism is essentially a giant ponzi scheme; more has to come out than come in and that's just not sustainable. It's utopian and spending your time working towards a utopia is at best a waste of time, but at worst it leads to terrible, terrible consequences when those utopias fail. If you want to advocate for communism, that's fine, but it's a lot like advocating for creationism; don't expect people to take your ideas seriously just because you're too invested in them emotionally to think about their objective truth value. Economics is a science just like biology and communism is as debunked as an economic system as Lamarckism is as a biological one.

Regulated, guided capitalism is the best system we have right now and we need to focus on making sure that we improve that system, not wasting our time inventing others that just don't work. Capitalism is by no means perfect and the neo-liberal direction that our markets are heading scares me shitless, but the way to correct wrong implementation of a system is right implementation, not no implantation. We can't throw the baby (a baby which has, by the way, done more for creating a secure middle class than the previous 500 years of feudalism and misguided state intervention) out with the bathwater.

 

[oktalist]

2) The U.S Federal Reserve Bank (the FED) (the one that loans to other banks and prints money) practices and encourages a practice called 'fractional reserve banking'. Basically that means that for every 100 dollars you put into the bank they keep, lets say, 1/10th or some other percentage in reserves and use the other 9/10th's to make investments, loans, and the like. This process is easily mishandled in the best of times but in the 90's the U.S government actively encouraged risky mortgage lending. This started with the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977 but snowballed to create the U.S housing bubble.

You are close but thats not actually how it works. I can see how you misunderstood it but allow me to explain.

A man goes into the bank and deposits $100. The bank then takes that $100 and deposits it with the Federal Reserve Bank and is then able to lend out $1,500 to the next customer. So its similar to what you said but slightly different.

The following is from the book, published in 2001 but now sadly out of print, "The Future of Money" by Bernard Lietaer, who worked in banking for 30 years, including as a senior executive at the central bank of Belgium, professor at the University of Louvain and fellow at Berkeley. He was the top currency trader in the world in 1989.

A central bank accepts any government bond that the public does not buy, against which it issues a cheque for the corresponding amount. This cheque pays for the government's expenses, and in turn the recipient deposits it in his own bank account.

That is when the magical 'fractional reserves' come into play. For every deposit that any bank receives, it is entitled to create new money, specifically, in the form of a loan to a customer of up to 90% of the value of the deposit*. That new loan - for example, a mortgage that will enable you to buy a house - will result in the seller of the house making a new deposit somewhere else in the banking system. In turn the bank receiving that deposit is entitled to create another loan for 90% of that new deposit; and so the cascade continues from deposit to loan down through the banking system. What started as a $100 million cheque issued by the central bank, by the time it works its way through the commercial banking system, has enabled banks to create up to $900 million of new money in the form of loans. If you have understood this 'money alchemy' you have understood the most arcane secret of our money system.

Money and debt are therefore literally two sides of the same coin. If we all were to repay all our debts, money would disappear from our world, because the entire process of money creation illustrated in the 'money alchemy' would reverse itself. Reimbursing all the loans would automatically use up all the deposits. Even the central banks' money would evaporate if the government were able to repay its debts.

* [small]Because the regulations specify that only 10% of a deposit need be kept as 'reserves' in case the customer withdraws the cash. Therefore up to 90% is available to make news loans. Changing that percentage is one of the techniques whereby a central bank controls the quantities of credit money the banks are able to create. In reality, the exact percentages vary with the kind of deposit made: the longer the term of the deposit, the lower the percentage of 'reserves' required. The 90% rule of the example, enabling a 'multiplier' of about 9 to 1 is only an illustrative average.[/small]

 

[funguy2121]

Watch the film and then come back to this thread...Done?OK WHY DO YOU LET THAT SHIT HAPPEN??I would start a killing spree,and why the hell didn't someone already??I am just wondering how do you feel now after watching the movie...Please do tell!

recaptcha:iPuble Edward.... what the hell?

Um...there have already been several killing sprees. But if you're asking why non-violent non-psychopaths haven't really tried to do anything, I'd suggest you google John Kucinich, Ralph Nader and the assassinations of MLK, JFK and RFK.

 

[SirSodit]

Socialism may not befit the exceptional individual who becomes a millionaire or just highly paid but it does benefit the masses, if the top gets paid less the bottom has more money to spread around. Also economic growth would not matter in a true Socialist society as it realizes that money isn't real and therefore only limits advancement. If this fiction commodity is not values advancement can take place as only raw materials and manpower can limit you, think how far science could advance with bottomless funding (see Cuba's medical achievements)(see George Orwell's "The lion and the Unicorn for benefits of a planned economy). As for freedom within economy just take grain speculation for example which over values the price of grain, although crop yields are increasing way above the world population thousands starve to death because they can't afford basic nourishment. I would rather have social security, free medical care and Civil rights (which are obviously not one of past so called Socialist society's strong points I must admit), than a society with a slim possibility of having vast amounts of money at everyone else's expense. Freedom not Free Market.

 

[marfin_]

It's because people get it into their plebeian heads that Socialism=Communism, Communism=Evil and Capitalism>Socialism, people don't want to mess with things

Yes your exactly right! Communism is the best form of government... on paper. In real life though it never really worked well for anybody not ruling the country.

The same can be said of Capitalism. The world elite get the majority of the money while the real people have to either live in poverty or sacrifice their ideals and work for corrupt corporations to make any headway.

Please get your information from someone else other than Michael Moore, go read a book about it. The difference between Capitalism and Socialism is that Capitalism provides great economic growth. In 1820 to 1998 the world economy grew 50-fold in capitalist regions like Europe and US. Capitalism also provides more freedom within our own economy and allows people to organize their own economy which provides a better environment for entrepreneurs. Socialism on the other had endorses a planned economy, which was similar to what the United States did during WW1 and 2 with war bonds... do you want to have an economy in which you always use war bonds? Other things like personal property would be viewed as means of production and would have no place in a Socialistic society. Don't kid yourself that there is a perfect system out there because there?s not. Even Capitalism has some major flaws, but its the best we have and we have been making it work since the 1800's at least. Just remember as long as humans have created it, it will always be flawed.

Europe, Capitalist? You, sir, need to brush up on your history. The European economic growth was fueled by imperialism--they found vast untapped markets. And even then the free market principles did not apply. Each colonial power used mercantile policies in their colonies (and motherstate). Obtaining raw materials for colonies at next-to-nothing costs, processing them in factories back home, and selling that stuff domestically and on to their colonies. The British, for example, did not allow competition in India (not even from Indian manufacturers), and resorted to extreme measures to keep it so. They, literally, cut off the hands of thousands of home-factory family cotton producers to eliminate competition.

And in America, the South was the cotton powerhouse, which surprise, surprise, was powered by cheap labor i.e. slavery. One of the reasons the South fought so damn hard against Abolition.

Capitalism is a myth; capitalist policies, however, are not.

Well yes that certainly explains the how certain resources were acquired, but what do you think happened to them once they were shipped back home? It took people who knew what to do with the materials and entrepreneurs to make those new technologies and ideas a reality. The economy did not become greater just from acquiring more resources. That was beautifully illustrated by Spain during the 16th century in which it had held wealth equivalent to 1 trillion US dollars in gold and silver from its colonies and had abruptly lost nearly all of it due to ?investments? which did not help Spain's long-term economic integrity and ultimately led to inflation.

See, I agree with that. Certain capitalist policies catapulted European economies far above everyone else. But, we give capitalist policies too much credit. The governments actively intervened in the system to give their companies the edge.

Also, Spain's economy collapsed because they did not grasp economics 101 (supply and demand of currency, in this case, gold and silver). Supply and demand are not exclusive to capitalism. Supply and demand is the theory which capitalism is based on. It's a nuanced difference; socialist/communist countries can also operate on supply demand, such as by raising taxes, tariffs, quotas, and etc.

Interesting, well I really enjoyed this discussion. btw where do you get your information?

 

[silent-treatment]

My biggest problem with Micheal Moore is he is a part of the problem. He separates people out and demonizes them when the thing that America needs to do is come together. Now before you think I am some sort of hippie, what I mean is America has a HUGE population of people, getting a good chunk of these people to agree on something is damn near impossible, but that is what is needed if we will ever change anything. To fix the economy we need to get the lobbyists out of DC and try to de-centerlize (spelling I know) things as much as possible because the greedy fucks (pardon my French)have too much control of things when all the marbles are in one place. How we do this is come together and put people in office who are willing to do this, and wait out the inevitable storm that comes with economic reform. But the people in power do not want this, both democrat and republican, so they hire people like Micheal Moore and Glenn Beck to keep everyone thinking that anyone who is a little different from them is a horrid person.

Its horrible, but no one listens to each other, and people refuse to see that the world is a lot bigger then it once was. There are more opinions then there was 50 years ago. There has been the Civil Rights movement, Feminism, the Gay Rights Movement. The world is different so people must be different, and this scares so many who just want the world to be simple. Sorry bit of a tangent there but its frustrating that its really is as simple as opening one's ears and heart, but people don't do it.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Pfft. It's pathetic that that hypocritical sham-spinster is still allowed to publish anything. He violates the principles of free-speech with libel and half-truths; staying out of prison on technicalities while his "message" poisons the minds of the gullible and stupid.

Still, if you watch a Michael Moore film, it's good for practicing your rhetoric and debate skills because every point he makes is usually followed by a fallacy, exaggeration or flat out lie of some sort. Moore prefers to take credible evidence, and then overt critical details or exaggerate them make his point. He's been called out for twisting the context of his evidence hundreds of times.

Moore also practices what I call "tunnel vision argumentation"; where he forces an extremely narrow point of view of any subject onto the audience in hopes that they won't question his reasoning or the other possibilities. He wants you to see things his way by making you angry, and then presenting his own brand of rubbish argumentation.
Sadly, it works, mainly because people do not think clearly when they are pissed off.

Any credible documentary creator tries to avoid this approach, because good arguments acknowledge, address, and rebut the other side's points. Moore's approach is to ignore everything else and shock his audience into compliance.

Moore is a hack of an "activist" and a disgrace to the art of documentary film. Do not be fooled by his intentions; he owns an expensive flat in upscale New York even while he preaches about the "evils" of capitalism and excess.

 

[oktalist]

Just because I only point out one or two examples doesn't mean they are the only ones I know.

OK, that was only a minor point I was making, please don't get too hung up on it. The main point was that it's a zero sum game; if there are winners there are bound to be losers.

And please, if you're going to make such assertions based on a lack of citation, please cite your own counter arguments. It just makes you sound silly.

A lot of what I'm saying is kind of original research, hence I've nothing to cite. I've also learned a lot from the Bernard Lietaer book I quoted in my post above. And my thoughts on Marxism are mainly from http://www.worldsocialism.org/

And don't talk down to me about simple economics or twist my words so maliciously.

I'm sorry you thought I was talking down to you. You probably know a lot more than me about economics. But we can all benefit from seeing things from different perspectives from those we are used to. I don't know how you think I've twisted your words and I certainly do not think I've done anything maliciously. I can only interpret your words in the way in which they appear to me to have been meant.

I wasn't saying everyone will or should suddenly become ultra-rich and the economy will still hold. I was saying that in a Capitalist society it is at least POSSIBLE. The sad fact of reality is that not every will become rich not because of some conspiracy, but because they don't see the right patterns, or aren't good at something marketable.

I didn't suggest there was a conspiracy. I asserted it was part of the mathematical "natural laws" that operate in a free market. Newton wasn't suggesting that gravity was a conspiracy either.

You say it's a sad fact of reality, I say it's a sad fact of capitalism.

You seem to be arguing against communism because it would be impossible for anyone to get rich. That's because it would do away with the very concept of rich and poor; it would do away with money, and trade. Free access to produce for everyone. There is no use for money or trade when you have that.

Also, do you realize that MOST rich people aren't famous?

Of course I do.

There are rich doctors, rich scientists, rich artists. And if those rich people didn't charge for services they were good at, they would be overwhelmed with all the work people tried to get out of them. If you make a good product or provide a good service (and being a good CEO is a good service to provide) you have to raise the price so that the demand isn't too high for what you can supply. That is extremely basic economics. You have to pick and choose who gets your attention or let the market forces do it for you.

No-one says they must honour every single request for services, just as much as they want to. Charging for services is not the only way to regulate how much service you provide. You are trying to fit communism into your preexisting capitalist notion of what an economy is, and it doesn't fit.

And I always thought it was the other way around: raising the price doesn't reduce demand; you raise the price because you are a selfish rational agent in a free market and there is so much demand that you can afford to raise the price while still selling the same number of units of your product. You seem sure of yourself, though, so I may be wrong. But what you are saying about supply and demand doesn't make sense to me.

Also you might like to explain how being a CEO is a worthwhile occupation. Serious question. But a minor one.

Unless you get rid of the whole concept of price, and money.

My point here is that you can never get rid of the most basic concept. Someone will always say "I have x." Another will respond "If I give you y, can I have x?" This is basic bartering. *snip* Bam, essentially Capitalism with no money. Price doesn't mean cold hard cash. It's what it "costs" to get something, or get you to give something.

Of course, I'm well aware of that. When I say no money, I also mean no trade or bartering.

Someone says "I have some bread. (Because I'm a baker.)" Someone else says, "I'd like some bread, can I have some?" Baker says, "sure, take as much as you need." Maybe the other person grows apples, and gives them away in a similar fashion to whoever wants them. Maybe the baker takes some apples, but this is not in exchange for the bread. They don't have a bread/apples exchange rate. They just give and take as much as they want. If the baker doesn't like apples, it makes no difference. There's probably someone else who grows oranges down the street. At no point does anyone think, "hey, I gave you some of my produce the other day, you still owe me." They just don't have that mentality any more. Anything you want, within reason, you can get for free, so there's no reason to charge for anything of your own.

 

[Dakinks]

Watch the film and then come back to this thread...Done?OK WHY DO YOU LET THAT SHIT HAPPEN??I would start a killing spree,and why the hell didn't someone already??I am just wondering how do you feel now after watching the movie...Please do tell!

recaptcha:iPuble Edward.... what the hell?

Almost everything Michael Moore does is HEAVILY one sided.

For example, in his Bowling for Columbine movie, his entire argument was essentially that America has such a high murder rate because we have guns. To prove it, he went over to Sarnia Canada (which is funny because that's where my girlfriend's from ) and found out that it's so safe there, people don't even lock their doors! Sarnia is LITERALLY on the border with America - seperated only by a river. The biggest difference, according to Michael Moore, is that Canada has stricter gun laws.

However, another proven fact is that heterogeneous societies (meaning societies made up of several races and diverse socio-economic classes) are inherently unstable. This fact is also shown when looked at Europe. France is one of the most socially unstable nations in western Europe - if not in terms of crime and murder (although that is among the highest in Europe), than in terms of violent protests and other forms of extreme social movements. Germany, on the other hand, is one of the most stable, with a booming economy, a strong military, and a very patriotic population. the difference? France's population is among the most heterogeneous in Europe, where as Germany basically outlawed all immigration to purposefully stay homogeneous.

Then you have America, which is the most ethnically diverse nation in the world. It's not just a story of browns, blacks, and whites - irish, germans, and greeks all have cultural differences too. Even if you were to outlaw guns in the US, you'd likely only marginally effect the murder rate meanwhile domestic violence rates would skyrocket (the marginal lowering of murder being taken and added to a marginal increase in domestic violence).

Very very well said. Just wanted to give you a little thumbs up

 

[mrdude2010]

he presents the extremist view, sort of like the opinion shows on fox news. i don't like pure capitalism but there's not a lot i can do

 

[Atmos Duality]

I use classical views on Human and Animal for this discussion.
Hivemind has an emphasis on the 'mind' part. It makes more sense to assume it is a collective mind. If you do not wish to define it this way, we should find a better word to use.

Collective intellect. *chuckle* I can't imagine the last time my input meant anything truly meaningful to anyone. Apparently, it's easier to ignore everyone else and yell louder than it is to reason with them.

And it makes me frustrated when you say that to produce enlightened Humans you need lobotomy. It did not require lobotomy to enlighten me, nor the thousands of free thinkers before me.

Never been sure why, but it has always sounded pretentious to me for one to proclaim them self as a "free thinker". Call it a flaw of mine.

In truth, one of the more important reasons we can't progress towards Communism now is because people keep inventing new reasons not to. It's like I am constantly telling people to go get the mail but they say things like "No, it might rain outside", "My roommate/spouse/family member won't do it, so why should I?" and "I'll let someone else do it.", which are all stupid reasons to people who see things objectively. Yes, it is this ridiculous how people will not work towards the future of Humanity.

They don't work towards it because Communism doesn't provide them assured security.

So long as there are individuals, even within a collective, there exists the potential for competing wills, and thus the potential for conflict. With the potential for conflict, there is doubt and the need for security, and that means someone will inevitably place their needs above that of everyone else to acquire that security.

Communism failed immediately because its structure contradicts this known logic. Unless you can find a way to forcibly rewire the human brain, (or rather, the individual), to place the collective's needs above his/her own at every time, Communism will always begin to fail at the macroscale, and eventually crumble.

Lenin and later Stalin's regimes proved this to great effect; the instant they came into power, they created a new hierarchy and the problems began again.
Stalin in particular betrayed any notion of security by publicly exiling and murdering millions over the course of his reign. Yet objectively, it's easy to see why he did that (brutal and inhuman as it was); he was cultivating his population into one that would (he thought) eventually adopt that social collective.

China had a similar program in place for decades, and it failed to accomplish much; once they switched to capitalism, they rapidly grew and now occupy the spot as #1 world power (through strictly unethical means, no less).

It is a system that cannot ever work because we are trapped by an endless cycle of necessity to compete with each other (instead of cooperation);by our very nature we can never trust each other. Even if the cycle began to close, someone could (and inevitably would) come along and manipulate it for their own ends just as others have done before and resetting the whole cycle again.

I hate pithy quotes but I recall my grandfather (in summary) "Trust is the second greatest commodity we have, only behind intellect, and it's always at a premium."

What people should instead be realizing is "By saying these stupid things I am creating a self-fulfilling loop of impotence.". It is that important, by saying stupid things you make the lives of millions of people yet to be born a lot worse.

Actually, people did stand up to the church. And things changed. Some for the better, some for worse.
Their intentions were purely selfish in any case (whether justified or not, is a matter of personal interpretation). Regardless, human history suggests that our societies are greatly influenced by the intentions (and genius) of a few; the many were simply there for the show.
It's one of the great ironies that pro-communists attribute and quote the work of so few when their emphasis is always on the many.

They assume that a collective consciousness will result in everyone's lives being better and more efficient. Yet the social consciousness has historically been shown to be largely inept, uncreative, fearful and hateful on its own.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

I'm not about to wreck shit up seeing as I'm in Canada, not America. I do see many faults with capitalism but Micheal Moore has burnt too many bridges with me.

On a totally unrelated note don't you think flippantly saying you're going to go on a killing spree over your political views is a little on the nose?

Because killing is fun!

[sub]I hope the sarcasm registers but sometimes this site surprises me.[/sub]

 

[Giest4life]

It's because people get it into their plebeian heads that Socialism=Communism, Communism=Evil and Capitalism>Socialism, people don't want to mess with things

Yes your exactly right! Communism is the best form of government... on paper. In real life though it never really worked well for anybody not ruling the country.

The same can be said of Capitalism. The world elite get the majority of the money while the real people have to either live in poverty or sacrifice their ideals and work for corrupt corporations to make any headway.

Please get your information from someone else other than Michael Moore, go read a book about it. The difference between Capitalism and Socialism is that Capitalism provides great economic growth. In 1820 to 1998 the world economy grew 50-fold in capitalist regions like Europe and US. Capitalism also provides more freedom within our own economy and allows people to organize their own economy which provides a better environment for entrepreneurs. Socialism on the other had endorses a planned economy, which was similar to what the United States did during WW1 and 2 with war bonds... do you want to have an economy in which you always use war bonds? Other things like personal property would be viewed as means of production and would have no place in a Socialistic society. Don't kid yourself that there is a perfect system out there because there?s not. Even Capitalism has some major flaws, but its the best we have and we have been making it work since the 1800's at least. Just remember as long as humans have created it, it will always be flawed.

Europe, Capitalist? You, sir, need to brush up on your history. The European economic growth was fueled by imperialism--they found vast untapped markets. And even then the free market principles did not apply. Each colonial power used mercantile policies in their colonies (and motherstate). Obtaining raw materials for colonies at next-to-nothing costs, processing them in factories back home, and selling that stuff domestically and on to their colonies. The British, for example, did not allow competition in India (not even from Indian manufacturers), and resorted to extreme measures to keep it so. They, literally, cut off the hands of thousands of home-factory family cotton producers to eliminate competition.

And in America, the South was the cotton powerhouse, which surprise, surprise, was powered by cheap labor i.e. slavery. One of the reasons the South fought so damn hard against Abolition.

Capitalism is a myth; capitalist policies, however, are not.

Well yes that certainly explains the how certain resources were acquired, but what do you think happened to them once they were shipped back home? It took people who knew what to do with the materials and entrepreneurs to make those new technologies and ideas a reality. The economy did not become greater just from acquiring more resources. That was beautifully illustrated by Spain during the 16th century in which it had held wealth equivalent to 1 trillion US dollars in gold and silver from its colonies and had abruptly lost nearly all of it due to ?investments? which did not help Spain's long-term economic integrity and ultimately led to inflation.

See, I agree with that. Certain capitalist policies catapulted European economies far above everyone else. But, we give capitalist policies too much credit. The governments actively intervened in the system to give their companies the edge.

Also, Spain's economy collapsed because they did not grasp economics 101 (supply and demand of currency, in this case, gold and silver). Supply and demand are not exclusive to capitalism. Supply and demand is the theory which capitalism is based on. It's a nuanced difference; socialist/communist countries can also operate on supply demand, such as by raising taxes, tariffs, quotas, and etc.

Interesting, well I really enjoyed this discussion. btw where do you get your information?

The bulk of the information can be found in Europe: A History [http://www.amazon.com/Europe-History-Norman-Davies/dp/0060974680] by Norman Davies [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Davies]....that and community college economics :/

 

[Extravagance]

OP: Seen the film, enjoyed it. Nothing is going to happen, especially in America. In effect, Socialism/True Communism are the only real ways out of this mess, and A: You Americans are batsh*t terrified of Communism, B:It requires the ability to produce anything anyone wants at any point regardless of cost and such and simply nobody has the resources to achieve this.